I've never liked this rule, and I like it even less now.

If the ref on the field has grounds to consider it a try, shouldn't he just award the try?

On the other hand, if he didn't see enough to award a try at the time, why hand it on to the video ref with an opinion that the try should probably be given?

It doesn't make sense. What he's in effect saying is: "I didn't see him score, and if you didn't see him score either, we should declare it a try anyway".

The video ref's role in disputed tries should be to step in if the on-field ref didn't see what happened. It should simply be: "I didn't see it ... have you got a better view?", and if no decision is possible, it's play on.

I wonder if this will change after last night? I don't think that is the first time this stupid rule has had a potentially very serious impact on an important game, but if I was a Wire fan today, I'd be apoplectic.

I agree

Whichever way it goes (current rule) or changed it will always be controversial as one team will feel agreived.

The current rule though is poor - from the replays last night Moore was not in a position where he could have definitevly called a try he was on the opposite side from the ball so I do not see how he could have sent it up as a try. If it is changed it should be ref call a try - end of, or it gets sent up as a no try or a not sure and the video ref makes the final call. Last nights was bad because it materially effected the result and with so much at stake was always going to cause controversy.

Will things change - doubt it, that would be a tacit admission that the current rule is wrong and the RFL would not admit to that.

Following that Joe Burgess interview you'd expect things to change. You'd be fuming if it was your team (although we've benefited on a similar this year with Wardle v Penrith).

That being said the first missed conversion by Thwellis was extremely poor and ended up being the reason they lost.

I remember the days of video refs spending 10minutes inspecting every frame of every angle available before watching every angle again. Absolutely infuriating.

The current rule throws up the odd shocker, but on the whole I prefer it to the old way

I don't know why it's a complex issue.

If neither of the two refs can be certain a try was scored, 'the try' is disallowed and play resumes.

I agree that any decision will be deemed tough on one side or the other, but that's competitive sport. Every refereeing decision puts someone on the back foot. At least, if neither ref saw a try being scored they can legitimately say "I can't award a try when I didn't see it".

That's what happened last night. They basically took Hull KR's word for it that they'd scored.

It feels totally wrong that you can be awarded points because you 'might have' scored, and then go off to Old Trafford on the back of that.

You could say the same argument the other way. If you scored a perfectly good try and the ref chalked it off because he hadn't got himself into a position to see it you'd be fuming. It's why we used to give benefit of the doubt to the attacking team

I know what the reason behind it is, but that doesn't make it right or even sensible.

I agree that's it's a no-win situation, and that someone will always lose, but on balance, I'd say that crowds are more used to seeing tries being disallowed - for forward passes, shepherds, off-sides etc (some of them very contentious) - than they are to seeing tries awarded that are not tries. So, they'd probably be more accepting of a 'no try - play on' rule.

I'd also suggest that if neither the on-field ref nor the video ref are able to tell whether it's a 'perfectly good try' or not, the vast majority of everyone else in the stadium will be in the same boat.

Hull KR might have felt aggrieved last night if that try had been chalked off, but seeing as they only had Joe Burgess's assurance that he'd scored, probably not for very long. Most likely, they'd just have got on with the game and mounted another attack. But as it was, instead of both teams remaining in the same position as before, Rovers were handed a game-changing advantage.

I just can't accept that a referee, who by his own admission didn't see what happened, is allowed to add "but it was probably a try".

Just send it up to the video ref like originally. No problem then. Simples

Just send it to the video ref to determine if the ball was legally grounded. If there is no video evidence that the ball was grounded then it’s no try, simple